Sean_Richards

Hi @SanfordWhiteman ,  I'm working with Marketo support on this but as you can imagine, this might be hard for them.   We're really a bit in the dark and hoping you could help direct us towards the light.   Can you share anything in regards to how to architect a solution to work around this? I am assuming it has something to do with controlling the order of operations with the sync, utilising a custom sync and some new flags that are set at various completion points of processing.   Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.   Cheers, Sean ... View more

So someone in one of my slack groups suggested the following:   "apologies if this is a simple workaround, but could you place a wait step prior to your lifecycle smart campaigns/programs running? This would give a chance for the "race" to subside before Marketo enriches the person's record and sends back to Salesforce. Alternatively, a custom sync rule (in Marketo) and associated workflow (in Salesforce) could make records wait in Salesforce for 5 minutes. If the rep creates a lead record and proceeds to convert it, then a hold in the workflow would be enforced before marking the record as "Sync to Marketo". Otherwise if they're simply left as a lead for 5 minutes, then they go to Marketo as normal (still marked as "Sync to Marketo"... "   I hate wait steps unless they are entirely necessary.   Is the custom sync generally the solution to this limitation?   If so, could you roughly outline the general consistent architecture you see in these? I understand there's a boolean "sync to marketo", but specifically in regards to this issue, is it common to hold ALL records for 5 mins in SF before (so long as they meet your other sync criteria) enabling them to be sync'd? Just seems slightly crude delaying ALL sync's because of this issue. Is there a way to limit how many you "hold up" and wait?   We have the development of a custom sync in our backlog for other database minimisation purposes.   Appreciate any feedback in advance.   Cheers, Sean ... View more

Thanks man.   I will await your further guidance on what options exist to build around it.   Cheers, Sean ... View more

I concur, am experiencing much inconsistency between IM's and score field values and the records displaying under the score sub-tab in insights. ... View more

Crickets....   Here is another question: If I have two leads in a program, with two different program statuses, then I merge those two leads in Salesforce, what exact logic does Marketo follow for deciding which person's program status the particular program to respect? ... View more

@Phillip_Wild any chance you can release open source to Github? Or provide me access to the repo?      ... View more

It's now well into 2020. Can we please get an update on if and where this is placed in the current roadmap? Is there any hope that this might be delivered this year? ... View more

Yeah definitely, I makes it easy when you are the lead admin for both platforms 🙂   FYI: We tested and it all works now (yay!) ... View more

I think both our methods are similar mate. They both abstract the trigger logic into a single field, and use that field to spawn the re-roll to occur once 🙂   I'm a big SF dude, so using the SF process step to check for any changes and flag a boolean seems like the easiest and cleanest way for me.   Thanks and I'll report back if this works. I've also sent @Edward_Unthank_ a tweet to see if he came across this issue in his logic before or not. ... View more

I had an idea. I could puish this back to Salesforce to handle the triggers and abstract it into a single boolean instead. So basically, have salesforce calculate if one or more of those fields are changed, update a checkbox to true to tell marketo to rerun the demographic score recalculation. Then update the trigger in Marketo to be a change to that boolean and = true. Then at the end of the recalc, reset the check to false. ... View more

So this would help you all understand the issue better: https://youtu.be/Id1xfYvIiJE?t=1907   We modelled this off Edward's architecture. When you see the "Gating ReRoll" Campaign, you will see he also has multiple triggers, but I can't figure out how this would not also result in a CRM sync firing off multiple parallel campaigns when mutliple data values are changed from a single sync.   The consequence is that each campaign starts at a slightly different timestamp, so the first campaign might reach a score flow step and add +20, but then the second campaign starts, and sets the score back to zero, so these parallel campaigns are affecting the score field at the same time, but out of order. ... View more

Exactly! ... View more

Hi Amit,   Here is the flow and also the daisy chain. Essentially, it resets person score back to behaviour score, then kicks off a chain of request campaigns.   The issue is that if this chain is started 3 times from 3 data value changes, yes, it tends to double the end result, or not quite double as there is three campaigns running, all making demographic score changes in parallel.   ... View more

Hi Chris, Yeah, we do sync our lifecycle program into SFDC and I agree with having a single MQL lifecycle status. I went ahead and solved this with the counter and timestamps. Here are screenshots from the dashboard and report I created to support us seeing MQL's over time, grouped by lead source. What's nice is that we can then see where they have move to in the lifecycle. With the counter visible, this also highlights any re-mql's. My lead source data is still a WIP, but this is a good step forwards. ... View more

Hi Chris, In my previous statement though I am suggesting/questioning that even Marketo themselves is taking a position that they would be OK to find a person (let's say CMO of X company) who has not "requested information about one of your products" and could qualify based on their role and the company begin demographically fit for their offering, that legitimate interest is met. They could then market to that person (sales outreach, nurture) regardless of them providing explicit consent. That's how I am reading their policy. Your thoughts? ... View more

So, I may be coming around on this legitimate interest thing. This is from Marketo's policy... Privacy Notice » Marketo Documents  Our legal basis for collecting and using the Personal Data described above will depend on the Personal Data concerned and the specific context in which we collect it.  We will collect and use your Personal Data where the processing is in our legitimate business interests, such as for direct marketing and sales of Marketo’s Marketing Automation Platform and Applications to prospective Business-to-Business (B2B) customers.   Our legal basis for processing Personal Data in certain circumstances will also be based on your consent to do so or where we need the Personal Data to perform a contract with you or in order to enter into a contract with you. In some cases, we may also have a legal obligation to collect Personal Data from you. So basically, the way I am reading the law, is that there are multiple categories that allow for personal data to be collected. Consent is one, legitimate interest is another. Under LI, it is worded to say LI for US or LI for them. Under "How do they collect information" they also state "Information From Other Sources:  In order to enhance our ability to provide relevant marketing, offers, and services to you, we obtain information about you from other sources, such as public databases, joint marketing partners, social media platforms, as well as from other third parties."  So that could mean for example, an email address from a prospect's public website in the public domain. Here is a statement from Salesloft "Let’s start by taking a look at how GDPR will affect prospecting. The regulation doesn’t directly call out cold calling and cold email, but it does require you to have a legal basis to process data. Two common legal bases for processing are consent of the data subject, which is your prospect, and legitimate interest of the controller, which is you." The law states that so long as the person could likely expect you to process their data, then it's OK. So most people are in fact reading this as "fit for business". I'm reading/thinking that the regulatory body is more about getting people to think better, spam less, make marketing more personalised and more targeted. It's not trying to stop people marketing all together without consent. The "rights of the individual" under legitimate interests are ambiguous and I believe designed to protect people such as children etc.   "legitimate interest balanced against the fundamental rights of data subjects" Now, this data provider of mine is still bad because they are not stating that they are reselling people's data in their Privacy policy, where as Marketo's states the following:  How Will Marketo Share Personal Data It Receives?  Third-Party Business Partners: Marketo partners with a variety of businesses and works closely with them to market or sell products or services. In certain situations, these businesses operate within the Sites. We may disclose Personal Data to our partners for the purposes described above. Some of our third-party business partners co-sponsor events and other offerings with Marketo. We may share Personal Data with these co-sponsors when you sign up for events or offerings to allow our partners to send you marketing communications and information that may be of interest to you, as permitted under applicable law. Maybe I am wrong after all.  I mean Sanford's comment above was in response to them selling the data to me and not stating so in their policy. But Forget that provider breaking the law for a second. If we procure a record of a person and stand by that our legitimate interest is that we believe they are a decision maker and thus should reasonably expect us to target them as a prospective B2B customer, providing the means to opt out and making our privacy policy clear in those communications, and that this does not infringe on their fundamental rights, then I think we're OK. There are some very large companies taking this stance and select few that are going "consent only" for EU, some going consent only for all. Maybe, until there is precedent of punishment for a targeted b2b email, then we should not limit ourselves? ... View more

This is still an issue right? I am still seeing "{{my.Event_Title}} {{my.Event_Type:default=Webinar}}! " in the subject line under the email tab in MSI. Pretty dismal that's not fixed. ... View more

OK I have two more questions: I am a sales person and one of my target accounts is a company (in my case school) in the EU that I want to reach out to. I find a contact that is known to be a decision maker for purchasing my product. Can I create a record in my CRM and reach out to this person via email?  Can this email for a known decision maker then be emailed by my marketing team on the basis of legitimate interest? Don't be shy here people, tell me your thoughts? ... View more

Yeah, too many people wanting to believe that they can use "target persona who's a fit for what we sell" as grounds for legitimate interest. Ideally, GPDR people would throw a single large company under the bus for this and set the precedent.  ... View more

Thanks. Coming from you this really helps me bed down my belief. So basically their business is this, in a nutshell: UK based data provider in niche vertical market space They collect (via any means necessary) data on people around the world, including EU  They confirmed that they do not seek explicit opt it at any point Their position is that so long as they email them within 1 month of adding them to their database and that email includes an opt-out link, that they are compliant. Further, they then on-sell that data to 3rd parties and state along the whole road that so long as the people are a fit for business, that implies their consent.  What a joke. They are clearly convincing themselves that despite GDPR, their business model is legitimate, and their lawyers (they told me two separate counsels) know sweet f*$& all about the law they are consulting on (why am I not surprised there). OK, well that confirms for me that any of their records from EU countries, I don't have any legal right to import into our system, let alone market to. Crazy. ... View more

Given that we are not currently going to nurture those people any differently, nor do we need any changes to responses from sales team based on it, We'll just do the counter from a data keeping perspective and leave the lifecycle simple. ... View more

Exactly. Thanks for confirming. ... View more

Hi Justin, Thanks for taking the time to reply. In our case, I don't believe we meet the needs for a "truly cyclical and multi-dimensional lifecycle" but maybe aspects of it.  Our typical sales scenario would be a multi stakeholder long lifecycle. Sales could take up to 5 years and might involve different people at different times, BUT, the school as an account, will only buy our product once (then recurring subscription). So what can happen is that they start investigating us and competitors with the intention of buying, get demos/presentations etc, then they may either loose momentum and not select anything, then wait for another 12/24 months (prospect re-engage/recycle) and then their active sales process begins again as an account. Or the other scenario is we lose the first deal, then 2-4 years later, then look for a better solution and come back into our sales funnel (once again the transition from prospect re-engage to MQL as an account). So We need a way to Re-QL people and we're currently refactoring our lifecycle to create the whole "Contact Status" and  allow people who have already moved from lead to contact to once again get MQL'd. So at the point that they do that, do you think there is value having a RQL bucket in lifecycle, or just an MQL counter? E.g. This first model would include the counter instead of a lifecycle stage: This second model would include the stage instead of the counter : I'm not sure there is actually much difference, other than maybe the reporting differences. ... View more

Thanks Sanford. We'll try a proxy field then, I just figured from the documentation I could find, that if I created a person with a false value, that it would override the durable table value on creation, it does not appear to be so. Appreciate the response. Cheers, Sean ... View more